Author Topic: Resistance and Sedevacantism (Read 5695 times)

Cantarella · « **on:** April 30, 2014, 11:56:44 PM »

From:

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/04/27/resistance-and-sedevancism/

Resistance and Sedevacantism

Apr 27, 2014

The Resistance has been accused by the SSPX of leading their supporters to Sedevacantism.

There is a fairly new variation that is infecting some French priests who leave the SSPX. They take the position called ”non una cuм”, and, although they do not consider themselves to be Sedevacantist, they do not pray for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass. This is a contradiction in terms.

They have many supporters in France and, it appears, in Quebec. Due to their numbers, they present an attractive option to wearied, battle-scarred priests who leave the SSPX and wonder where they will get their next meal.

Since the goal of the Resistance is to stick to the proper Catholic Teaching, as passed on by Archbishop Lefebvre, we have to reject the “non una cuм” position. When a priest offers to say Mass for us, we have to be clear on where he stands on this issue. If he gets this point wrong, then what are the odds that he accepts fully the rest of the proper Catholic Teaching?

Attached is a docuмent sent by the Quebec Resistance which addresses this problem. We fully support the position outlined in this docuмent and invite all to read it. The first part of the docuмent is in French, the English translation follows.

The practical implication is that although Sedevacantists are welcome to come to our Mass, provided they remain polite about their views, we cannot welcome Sedevacantist (or “non una cuм”) priests to say Mass for us.

Cantarella · « **Reply #1 on:** May 01, 2014, 12:01:27 AM »

Cited docuмent in English:

"
Charter of the Society of Christ the King

Catholic faithful resolved to keep the faith in these times of apostasy, schisms and heresies, we renew the Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent and Vatican I.

We support the 1910 Anti-Modernist Oath of Saint Pius X and the declaration of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre of November 21st 1974. We believe that one of the main duties of a Catholic is to defend his faith.

We are committed to working for the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven and Earth, Mother of God and Mediatrix of all graces.

We commit ourselves to fight against Modernism, sewer of all heresies.

We dissociate ourselves from Sedevacanstism in all its forms, including the Cassiciacuм thesis and the « non-unacuм » position.

Accordingly, we commit ourselves to support authentically Catholic Bishops that maintain the position of Archbishop Lefebvre pertaining to the crisis of the Church and especially concerning the recognition of the Pope. We also commit ourselves to support the priests who submit themselves to these bishops. We place ourselves under the supplied jurisdiction of these bishops and priests, appealing to the extraordinary circuмstances provided for by Canon Law and the extreme necessity in which the souls of the faithful find themselves.

As for the faithful who wish to participate in the organization of activities of the Society of Christ the King, we believe it essential for them to be in perfect agreement with the present charter.

Long live Christ the King !
The Society of Christ the King
Lévis , Québec, Sunday in Albis, April 27th 2014
Signatures

"

Centroamerica · « **Reply #2 on:** May 01, 2014, 09:07:11 AM »

Sedevacantists are not the enemy, the IBP and other ED groups are not the enemy. There is an antichrist seated on the sede of Pedro and no body does anything about it. We should be fighting to recuperate Eternal Rome into Catholic hands, not worried about sedevacantists or St. Peter Fraternity as this good resistance priests says so well.......

Cantarella · « **Reply #3 on:** May 01, 2014, 11:31:51 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Sedevacantists are not the enemy

This is true. Modernism is.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #4 on:** May 01, 2014, 11:44:33 AM »

I attend Mass with a resistance priest who does not say the name in the canon and also does not consider himself a sede vacantist. Mons. Williamson addressed the "non una cuм" position recently. I believe many priests who are taking this position are troubled by Bergoglio and have many doubts about the identity of the pope. I believe the most troubling part of the non una cuм is that unity is what is at stake. The 9 left over non una cuм issues and there could be more breaks in associations of priests over this issue. It can tend to divide the laity as well as some will begin to look into and think more on these crucial issues and favor some priests over others as I had been doing up until Mons. Williamson spoke recently on the issue. There is a definite danger to unity which will harm the resistance movement certainly. The English speaking world seems to be more conscious of this than say Latin America or France given the history.

Still, I would say that the clergy and bishop(s) should begin to discuss this more amongst themselves in light of the current papal claimant. Also, if a priest in Argentina did not use Bergoglio's name in the canon due to his anti-Catholic actions, after the election of Bergoglio as pope it can be understood why a priest can find this hard to accept......

untitled · « **Reply #5 on:** May 01, 2014, 12:36:40 PM »

This text is interesting:

"Mass Una cuм: Bishop Guérard des Lauriers used to say that "to cite John Paul II at the Te Igitur of the Holy Mass is to commit, objectively and ineluctably, the double crime of sacrilege and capital schism." On the contrary, the expression Una cuм in the Canon of the Mass does not mean that one affirms that he is 'in communion' with the erroneous opinions of the pope, but rather that one wants to pray for the Church 'and for' the pope, her visible head. In order to be sure of this interpretation, let us report the rubric of the missal for the occasion of a bishop celebrating Mass. In this case, the bishop must pray for the Church "Una cuм… me indigno famulo tuo", which does not mean that he prays 'in communion with… myself, your unworthy servant' (which doesn't make sense!), but that he prays 'and for… myself, your unworthy servant.' (...) "

http://fsspx.com/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #6 on:** May 01, 2014, 02:57:21 PM »

The Our Lady of Good Success Mission will not host "non una cuм" priests.

2Vermont · « **Reply #7 on:** May 01, 2014, 03:08:57 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

The 9 left over non una cuм issues and there could be more breaks in associations of priests over this issue.

I'm not completely sure but I do not think this is accurate. Those priests weren't even sede at that point.

Wessex · « **Reply #8 on:** May 01, 2014, 05:00:49 PM »

If the resistance is surprisingly pushing una cuм Masses, it will lose support. It will also be adopting a precarious position. Bp. W could meet his eternal reward tomorrow, forcing resistance priests to move closer to SVism or use their bishops. ABL sought the assisance of Bp. "there is no pope" de Castro Mayer when consecrating bishops, so why make things hard? In any case, so many trad priests see it as a personal matter.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #9 on:** May 01, 2014, 05:20:17 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Centroamerica
The 9 left over non una cuм issues and there could be more breaks in associations of priests over this issue.

I'm not completely sure but I do not think this is accurate. Those priests weren't even sede at that point.

It is cited in Wikipedia so I assumed it to be accurate. If anyone has different info I am all ears (or rather eyes). see the space in white regarding the nine

Stella · « **Reply #10 on:** May 01, 2014, 05:20:32 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Centroamerica
The 9 left over non una cuм issues and there could be more breaks in associations of priests over this issue.

I'm not completely sure but I do not think this is accurate. Those priests weren't even sede at that point.

I can't vouch for what their positions were in 1983, but the letter of the Nine to Archbishop Lefebvre is well worth a read, as is dispels some of the disinformation about the nature of their grievances. The letter is here, and can be summarized in the main points:

1. The Seminary
2. Doubtful priests
3. Liturgical changes
4. Dismissal of priests
5. Magisterial authority
6. Loyalty
7. Annulments

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** May 01, 2014, 05:57:58 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

From:

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/04/27/resistance-and-sedevancism/

Resistance and Sedevacantism

Apr 27, 2014

The Resistance has been accused by the SSPX of leading their supporters to Sedevacantism.

There is a fairly new variation that is infecting some French priests who leave the SSPX. They take the position called ”non una cuм”, and, although they do not consider themselves to be Sedevacantist, they do not pray for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass. This is a contradiction in terms.

They have many supporters in France and, it appears, in Quebec. Due to their numbers, they present an attractive option to wearied, battle-scarred priests who leave the SSPX and wonder where they will get their next meal.

Since the goal of the Resistance is to stick to the proper Catholic Teaching, as passed on by Archbishop Lefebvre, we have to reject the “non una cuм” position. When a priest offers to say Mass for us, we have to be clear on where he stands on this issue. If he gets this point wrong, then what are the odds that he accepts fully the rest of the proper Catholic Teaching?

Attached is a docuмent sent by the Quebec Resistance which addresses this problem. We fully support the position outlined in this docuмent and invite all to read it. The first part of the docuмent is in French, the English translation follows.

The practical implication is that although Sedevacantists are welcome to come to our Mass, provided they remain polite about their views, we cannot welcome Sedevacantist (or “non una cuм”) priests to say Mass for us.

Bravo :applause:

Marlelar · « **Reply #12 on:** May 01, 2014, 06:16:42 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Centroamerica
The 9 left over non una cuм issues and there could be more breaks in associations of priests over this issue.

I'm not completely sure but I do not think this is accurate. Those priests weren't even sede at that point.

Letter from "The 9" explaining their position.

link

Marsha

Unbrandable · « **Reply #13 on:** May 01, 2014, 07:10:39 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

If the resistance is surprisingly pushing una cuм Masses, it will lose support.

Here is what a Resistance priest sent to the Quebec Resistance group after hearing about the problem in Quebec:

"Even if there is a minority left that is faithful to the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre, it is better to have that, than a false union based on equivocation."

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #14 on:** May 01, 2014, 07:25:06 PM »

Quote from: Unbrandable

Quote from: Wessex
If the resistance is surprisingly pushing una cuм Masses, it will lose support.

Here is what a Resistance priest sent to the Quebec Resistance group after hearing about the problem in Quebec:

"Even if there is a minority left that is faithful to the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre, it is better to have that, than a false union based on equivocation."

Who is the priest, and what is his position?